MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764143201 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.14

Abstract 14: Effects of Lesion Laterality on Post-Stroke Motor Performance: An ENIGMA Stroke Recovery Analysis

2017· article· en· W2764143201 on OpenAlexaff
Sook‐Lei Liew, Neda Jahanshad, Lisa Aziz‐Zadeh, Niels Birbaumer, Michael R. Borich, Lara A. Boyd, Winston D. Byblow, Cameron Craddock, Michael A. Dimyan, Elsa Ermer, Anil Goud, Catherine E. Lang, Junning Li, Jingchun Liu, Thomas E. Nichols, Ander Ramos, Pamela Roberts, Nerses Sanossian, Surjo R. Soekadar, Cathy M. Stinear, Nick Ward, Junping Wang, Lars T. Westlye, Amy Kuceyeski, Carolee J. Winstein, George F. Wittenberg, Chunshui Yu, Steven C. Cramer, Paul M. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLateralityStroke (engine)LesionLateralization of brain functionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke recoveryPhysical therapyAudiologyPathologyRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The laterality of the lesioned hemisphere is often overlooked in stroke recovery research due to small sample sizes. Here, we used a well-powered dataset from ENIGMA Stroke Recovery (a consortium that harmonizes post-stroke MRIs and behavioral data worldwide; http://enigma.usc.edu) to analyze the effects of left (LHL) versus right (RHL) hemisphere lesions on motor performance. Given the different functional roles of each hemisphere, we hypothesized that the LHL group should show better motor performance, and, consequently, different brain-behavior relationships, compared to the RHL group. Data from over 2000 stroke patients across 20 sites worldwide has been committed. To date, structural T1-weighted MRIs from n=343 (10 sites) have been analyzed (LHL n=174; RHL n=169). ENIGMA protocols extracted volumes of subcortical regions of interest and provided quality control. Regression analyses examined brain volumes as predictors of motor outcomes. Motor scores were combined across scales/sites, with each score expressed as a percentage of the maximum score. Covariates (e.g., age, sex, intracranial volume) and manually marked lesion effects were also modeled. Statistical significance was assessed nonparametrically by permutation. As anticipated, the LHL group had better motor performance compared to the RHL group (t(1,341)=3.07, p=0.0023). In addition, while the combined LHL+RHL analyses showed significant associations between motor scores and volumes of the basal ganglia/lateral ventricles, separate group analyses showed strong associations for the LHL group, but only one association for the RHL group (Table 1). This may suggest that motor recovery following RH lesions is more heterogeneous or relies more on cortical regions/networks that were not assessed here. While further research is needed, these results suggest that laterality of the lesioned hemisphere affects neural patterns related to motor recovery and should be carefully examined.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207